Protection for vaccine makers debated (Sen. Frist behind it)

What would prevent a manufacturer from, say, including a healthy dose of cyanide in every (currently hypothetical) vaccine for HIV?

Would this strip all accountability?

What reasonable justification could there possibly be for such an irresponsible piece of corporate-giveaway legislation?

Makes me wonder...who was the person behind getting the Eli Lilly rider on the Patriot Act?

causing autism.

But since there is no empirical evidence that this is the case, your example--like mine--must remain hypothetical.

If there is no evidence that thimerosal is harmful, then why can't I buy merthiolate (active ingredient is thimerosal--it was a topical application anti-infectant) at the drug store OTC just like one could 25-years ago?

Not enough "profit" in selling merthiolate?

If you have actual evidence, then provide it. The removal of a product is not credible evidence that a product has a causative relationship with a particular malady-of-your-choice.

Since you provided no link, I'll need to look into it, but I'll offer this in the meantime: The FDA phased out Thimerosal as a preservative agent because of public fear--not because of any evidence that Thimerosal causes autism or any other neurological disorder. I suspect that Merthiolate was removed from the market for similar reasons.

If you have credible evidence of a causative link, would you care to share it?

Otherwise, you're just witnessing.

Yes, I am witnessing. "I" can no longer buy the product (true for a number of years now), pharmacists (note the plural) told me it was removed from the market.

"Public Fear!" Terrorrism! They're trying to hurt you! We'll protect you! We've seen this a lot recently. How many centuries has this fear tactic been practiced?

The link is psychologically associative. A product is removed from the market (because of 'public fear'?), but, not removed from vaccines for the same reason? A bit hypocritical, dontcha think?

And further, dontcha think this type of hypocrisy impugns science in the general public's (non scientific, non-college educated) eye?

Edited to add: I found in the late 90s that I could buy Merthiolate in Mexico. I haven't looked for it in the years since, but will state that I have yet to see it anywhere on a pharmacy shelf.

"Free Market"?

Go check out the Simpsonwood meeting between the CDC, IOM and the researcher who found statistical significance but then went to work for Glaxosmithkline and changed his numbers to suit his new boss.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

So, why don't you do a bit more research. You haven't been told the truth. I know this is the first time your government has lied to you, but my friend, it has.

Thanks, but I've read a good deal of the "evidence."

Very nearly all evidence supporting a causal relationship between Thimerosal and autism is derived from a single, out-of-context section of a single, disputed report. The rest of the "evidence" is composed entirely of heartfelt testimony by parents whose children, tragically, suffer from autism and who are understandably desperate to find a cause or scapegoat.

Fact One: No verifiable causal link has ever been shown between Thimerosal and autism. Such links as exist are vague, correlative, and almost entirely speculative.

Fact Two: The perceived increase in incidence of autism corresponds very closely with the expansion of criteria for what qualifies as autism. This is actually a good thing, because it means that more children with the disorder will be recognized and can receive greater care. Conversely, Thimersoal was present in vaccines for a long time before the recent so-called spike; why were there not more vaccine-caused cases all along? You must answer this if your argument is to have any validity.

Fact Three: Thimerosal is still in use in vaccines elsewhere in the world. Show me the broad, thorough studies that reveal a spike in autism rates. Such a spike must be even greater than in the US, where Thimerosal has been phased out of nearly all vaccines.

Fact Four: Claims about "unusual sensitivity to mercury" are unconvincing and are circular reasoning. Likewise, claims about "combinations of environmental factors" are post hoc reasoning and can't be proffered without clear supporting evidence.

If you know someone who suffers from autism or whose children suffer from autism, then you have my deepest sympathy. But it does no good, either as a treatment or as a preventative measure, simply to jump on the "we hate big pharma" bandwagon.

No, I hate Frist and Ely Lilly. I don't have a great fondness for GlaxoSmithKline.

I'm not smug, I'm educated and horrified by what I learned.

I don't care if you've read about Thimerosal The Great Satan every day since it was invented; if your conclusions are not supported by the evidence, then that's that.

I presented four facts. Refute them--otherwise you're just ranting.

And, when you refute them, I'll accept statements such as "go do the research" or "Researcher X says otherwise" as explicit forfeiture of the argument.

You obviously haven't, or you'd be aware that there are a number of independent non-US studies that show no link between thimerosal and autism. (In at least one of these, the rate of autism was found to be higher in the unvaccinated control group.)

The only link between vaccination and autism is that autism usually presents at about the age that children recieve their first vaccines (between 18 months and 3 years); mistaking correlation for causation, many parents have been quick to blame the vaccines, and the shameless self-promoting opportunism of quite a few people in the medical and legal fields who REALLY ought to know better has led to popular acceptance of this utterly nonexistent link. Fearmongering and irresponsible statements are no substitute for serious research.

I guess I haven't done years of research on this very topic. :eyes:

Oh, wait, yes I have!

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. The foreign studies don't hold up to scrutiny. Verstaeten's first study did stand up to scrutiny - so much so that he was compelled to dilute the numbers with children under three years of age to make it look like there wasn't a probable causal link.

Come back after you've read all of the information out there. It should take you about two years if you spend 4 - 6 hours a day on it. I'll be happy to discuss it further with you after you have an educated point of view.

And the evidence has led me to different conclusions, it would seem. (FYI, I DID spend "hours a day" for quite some time on this very subject.)

And for someone who's "not going to get into a pissing contest", you sound rather like you're trying to anyway...or are you this snotty all the time?

So let's ban volcanoes.

Please, if you're going to try to contribute to a debate, you're going to do better than that.

The Good Folk, also known as Little Folk or the Faeries.

Check out folkore on "changelings." Healthy, apparently normal young children were stolen away to the netherworld & changelings were left in their place. They looked like the missing children, but were strange & unable to communicate. Some learned to speak & even had certain special skills--but they remained "different."

The most you can say is "my interpretation of historical example X seems to coincide with my interpretation of the modern understanding of a complex mental disorder."

We can't rely on ancient anecdotal commentary to aid in the diagnosis of a disorder that, even today, is difficult to confirm with the patient sitting in front of you.

So do I.

Witness the numerous attempts to retro-diagnose Einstein with Asberger's, as just one a zillion examples out there. Heck, even "Bush on the Couch" suffers from diagnosis in absentia. Amusing guesswork with little utility.

It may be an effort to coolify a misunderstood "modern" disorder, or an attempt to make a historical figure seem less mythic, or simply to find a novel way of looking at a well-known character.

In any case, even if your post was tongue-in-cheek, there are plenty who make such claims with no irony intended.

Not so reasonable but they are trying to get retroactive protection for another poison they put in all children's vaccines - mercury. Eli Lilly is desperate to find a way out of this mess.

goes beyond negligence and gross negligence and is criminal conduct with complete disregard for public safety.

lawsuits filed because children had been potentially harmed by their vaccines (question of autism link to thimerasol in said vaccines), this was a rider attached to the Homeland Security bill.

...there is some merit to this.

There is no scientifically proven linkage between Thimerosol and autism, however, as we saw with silicone breast implants and Corning, that doesn't stop a jury from concluding incorrectly that there is, and awarding huge damages and bankrupt companies.

The jury will feel sorry about the tragedy of the autistic child and accept what may be a compelling but unproven theory of negligence or linkage.

The point is to wait until the science is firmly established. And drug companies will be very reluctant to develop new vaccines (very costly), especially when you consider the fact that the vaccine market is not particularly lucrative. Why would they?

But if the drug companies willfully withhold information leading to use and damages by people who would otherwise choose not to use the vaccines (informed decision) then sue them till the cows come home.

and be prepared to be flamed :)

BTW -- Welcome to DU!

:hi: I agree with you...we need to give protection, but not an absolute immunity if there is a CLEAR risk that the company knew about and did not warn patients/consumers about.

SOP for pharmabusinesses doing drug development, manufacture, testing and marketing.

At all phases, even if there is a known risk, and known "side effects" the products can and do still make it to market and stay in the market for YEARS.

A "side effect" is a KNOWN outcome in a certain percentage of users of any particular drug.

The article describes "sweeping immunity against lawsuits" for vaccine makers.

Poor Pharmacology Companies--the public's craven wish for some protection has made it IMPOSSIBLE for them to produce vaccines.

Poor Oil Companies--the public's craven wish for a cleaner environment has made it IMPOSSIBLE for them to build more refineries.

You may weep for them. I'll save my tears.

Since RFK recently and foolishly threw his weight behind the unsupported end of the issue, it correspondingly has greater visibility in the public consciousness.

Other drug-related issues are relevant, of course, but The Evils of Thimerosal are suitable for addressing because they're a favorite pet crusade here on DU.

At the most, I'd say further study is needed.

Using that example to support Bush's big giveaway to his pals is like saying "the WTC was NOT attacked by holographic planes--therefore, we must accept the government's version of 9/11 completely."

I'm just not in favor of giving Bush's cronies a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

But within this thread, the mercury/autism issue was raised in reply #5, so that't the direction that many subsequent posts have gone.

is nice too hear.

Historically, juries have made huge rewards without scientific proof because they felt sorry for the injured person. It's the same reason why we are losing 'baby' doctors left and right. A baby get's born with mental retardation and the parents sue the doctor for negligence and win. The parents don't have to prove the doctor was negligent, instead the jurors feel sorry for the parents and child and go after the deep pockets.

I believe we must do something to cap and control lawsuits, but Frist's proposal seems short sided and doesn't resolve the bigger issues.

We've had a fair amount of "tort reform" here in Tcxas.

Somehow, medical costs (including malpractice insurance) keep going UP.

1. Large and poorly-justified damage awards

AND

2. Rise in medical costs


As wrong as Conservatives are to blame 2 on 1, it is equally wrong to treat 2 as a terrible problem while pretending that 1 is none at all.

As would ex-Governor Bush.

All this coy "you're sleeping with the enemy" innuendo of yours is, frankly, boring and juvenile.

And since you're apparently disagreeing with me, let me see if I'm understanding you: You're asserting that there is no problem with large and poorly-justified damage awards against drug manufacturers?

By what possible logic could you conclude that large and poorly-justified damage awards are a good idea? Does that mean that I can sue you for a billion dollars because my car didn't start yesterday?

How would my lawsuit differ from a suit filed against a manufacturer for something for which the manufacturer is not responsible?

You seem, in some odd way, to think that I'm advocating damage caps or a restriction on legitimate, well-justified litigation. Honestly, I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion, since it has nothing to do with anything I've posted in this thread (or anywhere else, for that matter).

How many have been won? How do we know they were poorly justified? Who gets to decide that a case is "legitimate"--before it even comes to trial?

The purpose of "tort reform" here in Texas was exactly what you advocate. It hasn't worked out that way. No real data were produced. Just general statements offered by owned politicians & lobbyists from the Health Care Industry (HMO's & Insurance Companies--nobody who actually does patient care).

Your profile indicates that Debate is one of your hobbies. No debate judge I ever met would award points for words like "coy," "juvenile," or "boring." Produce some facts, please.

The "Thimerosal causes autism" have made there entire case with close to no evidence; perhaps you can show me the post wherein you demanded that they present facts in support of their case?

Or do you demand facts only of those who disagree with you?

Additionally, you should ask your debate-judge pals about snide insinuations in the course of debate. You've attempted several times to paint me as being of like mind with Bush or Perry. Is either of those accusations supported by facts, or is it based simply on your peevish response to an argument?

Cases are poorly justified when medical/scientific arguments made in support of those cases are not themselves supported by empirical evidence. Lacking empirical support, these cases are poorly justified whether or not they ever reach court. But since you seem to know all about it, why don't you tell me when a case is well justified or legitimate?

Perhaps you might address the $4.25 billion settlement against breast implant manufacturers, in a case based on little empirical evidence. Is that huge amount justified? On what basis?

If I am incorrect on this matter, I will recant, but I'll need more than your "you sound like a Texas tort reformer" brow-beating to convince me.

And I don't really care that you consider yourself brow-beaten.

Poor thing.

Since you offer no support your case beyond "cuz I say so," and because you've offer no refutation of any part of my argument, it's clear that your intent is not to engage the discussion but merely to take shots at those who disagree with you.

I know tort reform when I hear it advocated. Republicans want to enrich their corporate supporters at the expense of the people. You agree with them.

You answered my request for serious data with one anecdotal case & a demand for my own data. If you want to think you "won"--go ahead.

I know too many Republican idiots in Texas to want to waste any more time on you.

Since you still haven't engaged the debate, and you still persist in accusing me falsely, I can't imagine why you've wasted as much time on your meanignless postings as you have.

I don't even think I've "won" the argument, because you haven't entered it yet. And I've even offered criteria under which I'd recant my position, yet you can do no better than name-calling. My "one anecdotal case" is far more than you've offered, and a baseless multi-billion dollar lawsuit goes a long way toward proving my point, thank you very much.

It must be comforting to live in a world in which anyone who disagrees with you is a Republican idiot. My world, especially this morning, contains at least one apparent idiot who is apparently liberal.

Scream EMERGENCY, then deconstruct a hundred years of case law in one fell swoop. Because they'll just say, well if we did it for vaccine makers, we have to do it for everyone. Bastages. Farging iceholes.

:argh:

I hate Frist. Another attempt to shield the bigwigs from any responsibility. Bullshit!

Protection of corpoations from facing 'frivolous' lawsuits.

Since the free market is god, everyone should live or die by the sword. Of course, since corporations are god's little brother, they should never be ruffled by reality.

the fraud and drug administration says so. come get your shot of mercury, its good for you. dont worry that the drug companies take no liablility for putting LIVE viruses in the vaccine or mercury.

National Vaccine Information Center

BBC News - Row over autism link to vaccines

US confirms UK flu jabs unusable